Why is McClellan Criticized for Not Destroying the ANV at Antietam, Yet Grant Praised for Failing to do the Same at Spotyslvania Court House?

I was not referring directly to the War Dept., but, in any case, to the extent the War Dept was a hinderance, would probably not have gotten too different an answer between Grant or McClellan.

In the War Dept Halleck was a cypher, Lincolns Chief of Staff. after it was discovered he would, or could, not accept responsibility of command his Generals.

The river crossing that settled little macs fate in Lincolns mind, was how long it took the AoP took to cross the Potomac after Antietam, unopposed, compared to how long it took Lee to get the ANV accross it. That is after McClellan decided to actually cross it.

After Antietam, McClellan was wandering around Norther Va., worried that he might meet the ANV when he was not eady and Grant moved South, no matter what Lee was doing.

Halleck and the War Department may have been more of a problem for McClellan than Grant. McClellan made enemies and acted as if he was in command -- not the President, not Stanton, not Halleck. Since all three of those actually were above him, he had a cantankerous relationship up the chain of command. Grant, OTOH, acknowledged the authority of Lincoln and Stanton (Halleck was not directly above him, but Grant regarded Halleck as a supporter at that point). This is no different than the Confederate side: Lee did a much better job of managing his relationship with Davis and Richmond than Joe Johnston, Bragg and Beauregard did. Grant did a much better job of managing his relationship with Lincoln and Washington than McClellan, Buell and Rosecrans did. Both Lee and Grant got better support as a result.

But we should note that Grant earned the support he got, just as Lee did. The support was not based simply on victories. Grant and Lee worked hand-in-hand with their bosses (really hard to do with a Stanton); they consulted and advised, they argued strongly for their own positions and goals, but in the end they acted as loyal subordinates and earned the trust of the Presidents they served.
 
I was not referring directly to the War Dept., but, in any case, to the extent the War Dept was a hinderance, would probably not have gotten too different an answer between Grant or McClellan.


In the War Dept Halleck was a cypher, Lincolns Chief of Staff. after it was discovered he would, or could, not accept responsibility of command his Generals.

The river crossing that settled little macs fate in Lincolns mind, was how long it took the AoP took to cross the Potomac after Antietam, unopposed, compared to how long it took Lee to get the ANV accross it. That is after McClellan decided to actually cross it.

After Antietam, McClellan was wandering around Norther Va., worried that he might meet the ANV when he was not eady and Grant moved South, no matter what Lee was doing.

I think most of can agree that you have identified the essential anwer to the OP question:

Both generals had attacked the enemy just a their commander (Lincoln) had desired. Both generals had run into a bloodbath, with no conclusive result from the fight. In both cases, Lincoln wanted an aggressive follow-up attack in the hopes of dealing a knock-out blow to the ANV. Grant gave Lincoln the quick follow-up attacks that he wanted, while McClellan never did.

(As an aside, I would comment that Lincoln surely must have appreciated Grant for accepting responsibility for the ghastly losses of the Overland Campaign when the blame for this carnage rightly belonged with Lincoln.)
 
That is after McClellan decided to actually cross it.

Or rather, Halleck let McClellan cross it. McClellan's offensive continued until 26th September, when Halleck essentially forbade him from exposing Washington with his aggressive movements. It takes until 23rd October for McClellan to secure Halleck's permission to cross the Potomac. We had a thread on it.
 
I think most of can agree that you have identified the essential anwer to the OP question:

Both generals had attacked the enemy just a their commander (Lincoln) had desired. Both generals had run into a bloodbath, with no conclusive result from the fight. In both cases, Lincoln wanted an aggressive follow-up attack in the hopes of dealing a knock-out blow to the ANV. Grant gave Lincoln the quick follow-up attacks that he wanted, while McClellan never did.

(As an aside, I would comment that Lincoln surely must have appreciated Grant for accepting responsibility for the ghastly losses of the Overland Campaign when the blame for this carnage rightly belonged with Lincoln.)

You Blame Lincoln for casualties that's a new one on me , Its called war Lee's army was protecting Richmond it had to be dealt with and the only way of dealing with it was attrition to wear him down bit by bit , One does not simply destroy an army you have to destroy it mentally as well as physically and this cant be achieved in one battle or very rarely.

Lincoln knew late 1862 that Lee had to be dealt with and he knew McClellan was incapable of winning via attrition he simply would not commit his forces or take casualties he was either afraid of losing or had a genuine desire not to see men die for little gain i suspect the first reason but i digress.

Your fighting the best defensive general on his own turf , Land that he has known all his life and here is Grant who does not have a clue about the lay of land given the task of defeating one of the best generals of the war in his own backyard , The task Grant had was insanely hard and to add to that he was in control of an army he knew nothing about.

Both Grant and Lincoln knew the price was going to be high but your forgetting the price was higher for Bobby Lee who in my view prolonged the war for no reason and made the suffering even worse , He should have called it quits at Petersburg when the siege first started no reason to fight on.

I find it annoying that people actually criticise Grant or Lincoln over casualties They knew what was needed to beat Bobby Lee and they got it done , Blame Bobby Lee and Davis for the increased suffering of both his troops and Grants.

Sidenote: How many troops died of disease over that siege period what 9 months?.

In my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Or rather, Halleck let McClellan cross it. McClellan's offensive continued until 26th September, when Halleck essentially forbade him from exposing Washington with his aggressive movements. It takes until 23rd October for McClellan to secure Halleck's permission to cross the Potomac. We had a thread on it.
Halleck doesn't forbid McClellan to do that; mainly, Halleck, the War Department and Lincoln want a clear explanation of what McClellan plans to do and a clear commitment to actually execute his plan. McClellan never wants to do those things, so he never gets a clear go-ahead to proceed.
 
Halleck doesn't forbid McClellan to do that;

Yes he does.

Halleck forbids McClellan for a forward movement and asks for his plans so they can be approved. McClellan promptly submits plans. Halleck naval gazes for a month, neither approving nor disapproving, but still not giving permission.
 
Yes he does.

Halleck forbids McClellan for a forward movement and asks for his plans so they can be approved. McClellan promptly submits plans. Halleck naval gazes for a month, neither approving nor disapproving, but still not giving permission.

I've read the telegram you are talking about. You are reading way, way too much into it. You seem to think McClellan was being unfairly treated no matter what happens. He has been behaving badly towards his superiors for over a year in September of 1862. They are sick and tired of it. He's used up his leeway. He needs to act as a loyal subordinate, not a prima donna. Sometimes the old adage "Soldier, shut up and soldier!" applies, and McClellan didn't know when that was.
 
You Blame Lincoln for casualties that's a new one on me , Its called war Lee's army was protecting Richmond it had to be dealt with and the only way of dealing with it was attrition to wear him down bit by bit , One does not simply destroy an army you have to destroy it mentally as well as physically and this cant be achieved in one battle or very rarely.

Lincoln knew late 1862 that Lee had to be dealt with and he knew McClellan was incapable of winning via attrition he simply would not commit his forces or take casualties he was either afraid of losing or had a genuine desire not to see men die for little gain i suspect the first reason but i digress.

Your fighting the best defensive general on his own turf , Land that he has known all his life and here is Grant who does not have a clue about the lay of land given the task of defeating one of the best generals of the war in his own backyard , The task Grant had was insanely hard and to add to that he was in control of an army he knew nothing about.

Both Grant and Lincoln knew the price was going to be high but your forgetting the price was higher for Bobby Lee who in my view prolonged the war for no reason and made the suffering even worse , He should have called it quits at Petersburg when the siege first started no reason to fight on.

I find it annoying that people actually criticise Grant or Lincoln over casualties They knew what was needed to beat Bobby Lee and they got it done , Blame Bobby Lee and Davis for the increased suffering of both his troops and Grants.

Sidenote: How many troops died of disease over that siege period what 9 months?.

In my opinion.

You surprise me. The 'hard war' policy typified by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan was pushed and explicitly approved by Lincoln, the commander in chief. Who else should be held responsible?

Obviously Lincoln and Grant would have preferred an Overland Campaign that involved fewer Union casualties. But I don't see any sign at all that they were ever deterred by the torrent of blood.
 
You surprise me. The 'hard war' policy typified by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan was pushed and explicitly approved by Lincoln, the commander in chief. Who else should be held responsible?

Obviously Lincoln and Grant would have preferred an Overland Campaign that involved fewer Union casualties. But I don't see any sign at all that they were ever deterred by the torrent of blood.

I agree Bruce i think both Lincoln and Grant went into the overland campaign with their eyes wide open only a select few were told it was going to be a bloody affair.

You cant blame Lincoln for a war caused by the South , You cant blame Lincoln for Davis and Lee's stubborn resistance all you can do is work with the tools you have and Lincoln had tried nearly every tool in the box without much success.

To win the War Lee had to be removed It was unavoidable for Lincoln and therefore not his fault in my view.

More blame should go to Davis and Lee for the bloodshed caused after July 1864 however i am convinced McClellan running for president had a huge impact on the South decision to fight on and may be the reason Lincoln wanted to win the war at all cost.
 
Halleck and the War Department may have been more of a problem for McClellan than Grant. McClellan made enemies and acted as if he was in command -- not the President, not Stanton, not Halleck. Since all three of those actually were above him, he had a cantankerous relationship up the chain of command. Grant, OTOH, acknowledged the authority of Lincoln and Stanton (Halleck was not directly above him, but Grant regarded Halleck as a supporter at that point). This is no different than the Confederate side: Lee did a much better job of managing his relationship with Davis and Richmond than Joe Johnston, Bragg and Beauregard did. Grant did a much better job of managing his relationship with Lincoln and Washington than McClellan, Buell and Rosecrans did. Both Lee and Grant got better support as a result.
But we should note that Grant earned the support he got, just as Lee did. The support was not based simply on victories. Grant and Lee worked hand-in-hand with their bosses (really hard to do with a Stanton); they consulted and advised, they argued strongly for their own positions and goals, but in the end they acted as loyal subordinates and earned the trust of the Presidents they served.







I agree completel that McClellan had the more difficult relations with both the War Dept. and his Commander In Chief,. Mainly, as I think you suggest, because he was unwilling to accept the constraints placed upon him and his army, due to those military and political necessities, that he did not agree with.
 
Or rather, Halleck let McClellan cross it. McClellan's offensive continued until 26th September, when Halleck essentially forbade him from exposing Washington with his aggressive movements. It takes until 23rd October for McClellan to secure Halleck's permission to cross the Potomac. We had a thread on it.







Are you referring to McClllans crossing of the Potomac after his victory at Antietam?
 
I agree Bruce i think both Lincoln and Grant went into the overland campaign with their eyes wide open only a select few were told it was going to be a bloody affair.

You cant blame Lincoln for a war caused by the South , You cant blame Lincoln for Davis and Lee's stubborn resistance all you can do is work with the tools you have and Lincoln had tried nearly every tool in the box without much success.

To win the War Lee had to be removed It was unavoidable for Lincoln and therefore not his fault in my view.

More blame should go to Davis and Lee for the bloodshed caused after July 1864 however i am convinced McClellan running for president had a huge impact on the South decision to fight on and may be the reason Lincoln wanted to win the war at all cost.

Well, you can blame Lincoln for the war or you can blame Davis for the war but neither is a very satisfying answer to the big question of "Why?" did we have to have a war in the first place. In my view, both were too quick to resort to war.

But I do agree that Davis should have recognized the failure of the Confederte war sooner, and saved many, many lives by ending the war sometime in 1864.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top